(urth) AEG clones
James Wynn
crushtv at gmail.com
Sun Dec 21 01:17:32 PST 2008
Roy took umbrage:
> James Wynn quoted from two different paragraphs I wrote and tied them
> together with [...] (minus the brackets), which distorts the meaning:
First off: This is unmitigated crap. I tied together the points I was
directly responding to with an ellipsis . Since when are the additional
brackets required? Anyone following the thread will have read the original
post for its full beauty. It's fine for you to clarify, but the segments I
provided do not distort the meaning of anything you said. I certainly didn't
do anything to *dishonestly* distort their meaning as your reply implied
(intentionally or not). Is there a point in the original that deserves
reiteration? Is there a nuance that didn't carry the first time? Okay. That
happens to me too.
> The text-based solution I meant, as the remainder of my original paragraph
> makes clear, is the solution to the question of what green dress Cassie
> wore
> before the play that Reis could have seen her wearing.
Didn't carry. And it's not text based either, which is probably why it
didn't. Reis never said AFAIK that he saw Cassie in the dress *before* the
play. He said he saw Cassie wearing the dress at the party. Quote: "I was
thinking of the party. I took you home, remember?" Maybe he lied. But then
the whole conversation is a lie without any mixture of truth. So, maybe he's
lying about her being in a green dress the first time he saw her as well?
Maybe he's lying about loving her? Maybe Gid had him take her home from the
mountain. But why all the lies? He knows that Cassie is working for Gid.
Either way, he knows she knows he knows she is working for Gid.
On the other hand, we have Wolfe's M.O. of having people tell apparent lies
that end up being the truth. This theory doesn't fit that, but your previous
one did.
> Inelegantly? Oh, dear. As for the mysteries, they come with the territory.
Roy, you discarded (perhaps only temporarily) an explanation **for this
scene** that tied up a bunch of loose ends in a single sweep and devised one
instead that generates out of thin air an entire novel's worth of mysteries.
"Comes with the territory"? You're leveraging the Lousiana Purchase with
pocket change. It doesn't mean its not true, but it certainly isn't based on
a more *literal* reading.
>Only if there really are clones of Reis in the story. No smoking gun has
>yet
>been found. The loden dress doesn't kill the clone theory.
But it *is* an alternate theory. And as for being useful as a theory, it
creates a irresolvable mess that would turn further consideration of "what
is really going on" into pure augury.
The answer isn't going to come as a smoking gun. It's going to come from the
preponderance of the evidence. It will come from an explanation (or a short
list of explanations) that makes the story fit together.
J.
More information about the Urth
mailing list